Energy Policy: Is the Obama Administration Changing Its Tune On Natural Gas

RED STATE, 9/24/2009 - Natural gas currently satisfies nearly a quarter of the country’s total energy needs. Gas is clean-burning and has less environmental impact than either oil or coal. We have a secure and abundant supply in North America, the technology to drill and produce it efficiently, and a robust distribution network to deliver it to market. Natural gas drilling could generate new, good-paying jobs by the thousands, and not two years from now, but now. At current prices, gas delivers the same energy as a barrel of oil at a third of the cost. What’s not to like? ∴ Policy makers have conflated natural gas with oil and coal as “fossil fuels”, fuels of a bygone era. When candidates intone, “We must end our dependence on fossil fuels,” most of us nod and uncritically accept the notion. We project oil’s perceived shortcomings onto natural gas (”Peak Oil”, dependence on the Middle East, balance of trade deficits, and the environmental threat of spills), when none of those issues is relevant to natural gas. With the arguable exception of nuclear fission, the steady blue flame of natural gas represents the closest thing we have to an ideal fuel. ∴ Until now, the Obama Administration’s “Green Jobs” rhetoric and the stated commitment to wind and solar had the future for natural gas looking mighty bleak, despite the obvious advantages. Just last April, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that using natural gas as a transportation fuel “will put a strain on natural gas for industrial uses, for heating, and other things“. ∴ Lately, however, there are signs that the Obama Administration might be changing its tune. Read more at Red State...